MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:         

	BOARD DATE:           16 May 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000035572

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Kenneth H. Aucock		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian 		Chairperson	
	Mr. Van B. Cunningham		Member	
	Mr. Lester Echols 		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That his general discharge be upgraded to honorable.  
APPLICANT STATES:  That prior to his enlistment, his recruiter was aware that he had only a sixth grade education, but nevertheless, recommended that he (the applicant) reflect that he had a 10th grade education.  Because of his lack of formal education, his recruiter knew that he most certainly would fail the field radio repairman course for which he enlisted.  He did not have a fair chance to pass the required tests, nor was he aware of the knowledge and education level necessary to successfully complete the required training.  

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

On 18 December 1974, prior to his enlistment, the applicant completed and signed a DD Form 398, Statement of Personal History, in which he indicated that he attended Chichester High, in Boothyn, Pennsylvania for two years, but did not graduate.

The applicant enlisted in the Army for three years on 13 January 1975 for training as a field radio repairman (MOS 31E20).  He agreed, that in order to qualify for enrollment in the course, he had to meet a prerequisite prior to enrollment; that is, he had to be qualified as a field radio mechanic (MOS 31B20).  In the event that he failed to meet the required prerequisite, he would be trained and utilized in accordance with the needs of the Army.

The applicant was assigned to Fort Jackson, South Carolina, completed basic training, and in March was assigned to Fort Sill, Oklahoma, for advanced training.  

On 10 June 1975 the applicant was declared a nongraduate of the field communication electronic equipment repair course, due to academic failure.  The recommendation was made to assign the applicant to perform as a radio mechanic, and that the gaining commander award him the MOS of 31B.  The applicant’s Personnel Qualification Record shows that he was awarded           that MOS.

On 22 June 1975 the applicant was assigned to Fort Bliss, Texas for training in MOS 16D10, air defense artillery.

On 9 July 1975 the applicant received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ, for AWOL from 2-8 July 1975.

Statements by the applicant’s platoon guide, drill sergeant, drill instructor, and first sergeant, show that the applicant had been counseled concerning his attitude, and that the applicant indicated that he wanted to get out of the Army.  Those officials recommended that it would be in the best interest of the Army that he be discharged.

In a 16 July 1975 statement, the brigade chaplain stated that he had talked with the applicant, felt that the applicant was confused, and that he had a great deal of anxieties.  The chaplain stated that the applicant was disheartened when he failed to receive another MOS, and that he had experienced difficulty in regaining motivation since being assigned to Fort Bliss.  He would not be a productive soldier because of his immaturity, coupled with his attitude toward training and his family problems.  The chaplain stated that it would be in the best interest of the Army that the applicant be discharged. 

A 22 July 1975 report of mental status evaluation shows that the applicant had no significant mental illness, was mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and adhere to the right, and had the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings.  He met the standards for retention in the Army.  That report indicated that the applicant was disillusioned with the Army for not receiving the MOS he desired, and because of his separation from his wife.  The applicant indicated that he would get into more trouble if he remained in the Army.  He had no psychiatric disorder, although he displayed immature character traits.  He was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate.

On 25 July 1975 the applicant’s commanding officer notified the applicant that he was initiating action to discharge the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-37, and that he was recommending that the applicant receive a general discharge.  He stated that the applicant had refused to adjust to military life due mainly to his negative attitude and lack of motivation. All attempts at counseling had proven useless, in that he had shown no improvement in his pattern of behavior.  His commanding officer stated that the applicant was held in low esteem by his classmates, and was reluctant to do anything to make himself a viable part of the military.  His attitude was such that the most menial task that he performed required close supervision.

Counsel advised the applicant of the reason for the separation action and the rights available to him.  The applicant voluntarily consented to be discharged from the Army and declined to submit a statement in his own behalf.  He stated that he understood the nature and consequences of the general discharge that he might receive.

The applicant’s commanding officer recommended to the separation authority that the applicant be discharged.  On 4 August 1975 the separation authority approved the recommendation and directed that the applicant receive a General Discharge Certificate.

The applicant was discharged on 12 August 1975.  He had 6 months and 24 days of service and 6 days of time lost.

Army Regulation 635-200 provides the policy and sets forth the procedure for administrative separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 5, then in effect, provided, in pertinent part, for the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP). This program provided that individuals who had completed at least 6 months, but less than 36 months of active duty and who demonstrated (by poor attitude, lack of motivation, lack of self-discipline, inability to adapt socially or emotionally or failure to demonstrate promotion potential) that they could not or would not meet acceptable standards could be separated.  Such personnel were issued a general or honorable discharge, as appropriate.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  The applicant’s contention of connivance by the soldier who recruited him has no basis in fact.  The applicant himself indicated that he had attended high school for two years.  Nonetheless, the applicant was not discharged because of his failure to qualify in the MOS for which he enlisted, but because he demonstrated by his attitude that he could not or would not meet acceptable standards.  He had the opportunity to qualify as an air defense artilleryman.

2.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.

3.  The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of his request.   

4.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

5.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___aao__  ___le____  ___vbc__  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000035572	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000516	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  360	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.